Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: The geographical area covers areas of marine and terrestrial megabiodiversity of Mesoamerica
Evidence B:proposed areas are part of the Meso American Biological Corridor and part of Key biodiversity areas.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Tropical rainforest areas of Mesoamerica, exposed to exploitation and errosion process of biodiversity
Evidence B:The ranges vary from moderate to high
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Governance conditions vary in each country of the Regio, giving legal robust conditions in the territories of the IP, and shallower in the case of peasant communities
Evidence B:Areas in Petan Guatemala and Belize rights are not recognized in the specific proposed areas and have limited if any indigenous governance
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Not explicit the link of the proposal with cultural management of ecosystems and livelihoods.
Evidence B:no explanation provided
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: It is clear understanding of the drivers of biodiversity decline and ecosystem conditions.
Evidence B:The threats are very generally described it is hard to evaluate.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: In Mesoamericana proposals and special areas there are variables rights of IPLC, there are exceptional cases of territorial recognition, however prevalent forms of private ownership. The project can contribute to restoring cultural foundations of governance from the perspective of territoriality and identity
Evidence B:projects described are regional and the descriptions do not offer a sense if these are the active in the proposed areas.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There are initiatives support conservation, with more direct attention of government in Costa Rica, in the other countries are in the nature of international cooperation, clearly identified in the argument of the initiative.
Evidence B:This is not addressed in the EoI but some of the countries listed do have some support for IPLC led conservation
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: There are pilot projects that have exceeded expectations and improved participation of IPLC
Evidence B:the EoI does not provide information to make this assessment. However there are some projects in some of the countries listed.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: no clear articulation with preliminary efforts and present.
Evidence B:three projects are listed but it is not clear whether this apply to the proposed sites
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: There is a clear recognition of the objectives of the program and contributions from the initiative presented, the actions could be clearer on how full and affective participation of IPLC is strengthened.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It is clear what is intended to carry out, not clear about the focus of action to ensure empowerment and community biocultural relationship with their natural surroundings.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The objectives are clear, the scope is not explicitly on its strategy or mechanisms of action to achieve them
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Well aligned, with little explanation of the strategy of the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Indetificados good actors and financing processes
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: He approaches the 500k has, however encompasses a key geographical diversity and landscapes for conservation of the biological corridor in mesomaerica
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: No indicators are provided for cultural type, should be extended
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: there are benefits of conservationist character medium- and long-term and sustainable use of biodiversity, is very limited understanding of the social implications.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The character of the multinational project type, n is clear the relationship with national policies, it should be an exercise in the framework of regional macropoliitcas of SICA
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: the diversity of actors is recognized, but it is not clear gender focus.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There are experiences that demonstrate potential for success.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: There is a mapping of local communities to participate in the proposal, the roles are unclear
Evidence B:The organization is a coordination of indigenous peoples and campesinos. the listed organizations seem to be mostly NGOs and indigenous organizations in question 20 are listed as beneficiaries only
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Demonstrates leadership, it is unclear strategy and contribution to improving governance and capacity building of local partners for the proposed site.
Evidence B:Two regional relevant projects are listed and organizations has several years of experience working with indigenous peoples and campesinos
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: It is not clear the role of each partner.
Evidence B:organizations roles seem to be limited to beneficiaries
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Given the diversity of organizations per site, the capacities are variable, however it is clear the ability of the organization to boost growth leader set
Evidence B:Several large and relevant projects are listed.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: It has not been presented explicitly capabilities, especially by the changing environment in each country or place to deal with the initiative
Evidence B:organization has experience with large projects from a variety of agencies.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: It requires relating experiences with the GEF Safeguards
Evidence B:NA